Manhattan's legal circles are poised for a pivotal ruling from Judge Juan M. Merchan on whether former President Donald Trump's 34-count conviction for falsifying business records will stand.

A Supreme Court decision granting broad presidential immunity is at the heart of the arguments for overturning Trump's recent conviction, Newsmax reported.

In October 2016, just before his election, Trump was involved in a transaction that led to a $130,000 payment to his former lawyer Michael Cohen. This amount was logged inaccurately as a legal expense. The falsification relates to payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to prevent her from disclosing a previous affair with Trump.

This episode led to a conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. While Trump's defense insists that the conviction should be nullified based on a Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors argue that his actions were personal and thus not covered by the ruling.

Supreme Court Ruling Raises Questions About Presidential Immunity

The crux of Trump’s legal challenge hinges on a recent Supreme Court decision that grants immunity to former presidents for actions taken while in office. Trump’s legal team contends that this immunity should extend to actions related to his 2016 campaign.

Law experts like Ilya Somin from George Mason University argue against this interpretation. Somin asserts that Trump's actions, being personal and unrelated to official presidential duties, are unlikely to receive protection under the ruling.

The defense also contends that evidence gathered during Trump’s time in office, including discussions allegedly held in the Oval Office, tainted the trial. They argue that the court should exclude such evidence from the proceedings.

Judge Delays Decision to Post-Election, Citing Potential Election Influence

Judge Merchan initially planned to decide in September but postponed his ruling to avoid influencing the election outcomes. Now expected on Tuesday, the delayed ruling has generated significant interest and speculation about its potential impact on Trump's post-presidential life.

If Judge Merchan rules against Trump, he will sentence him on November 26. However, Trump’s team is likely to file immediate appeals, which could prolong the legal battle.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied Trump's request to transfer the case from state to federal court, where he hoped to leverage federal-level presidential immunity more effectively.

Legal Arguments and Public Statements Add to Controversy

During the trial, Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove vehemently argued that the presidential immunity decision should shield Trump from these charges, accusing prosecutors of bias and attempting to politically sabotage Trump by associating criminal motives with his actions.

On the other side, prosecutors maintain that the Supreme Court decision should not affect the case, emphasizing that the acts were personal and executed before Trump assumed office, thus falling outside the scope of any official presidential acts.

Trump has publicly denounced the conviction as a “rigged, disgraceful” example of a “politically motivated witch hunt,” asserting his innocence and vowing to continue fighting the verdict.

Experts Weigh In on Complex Legal Theories

David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University, predicts a lengthy legal process ahead. He notes that Trump is likely to seek intervention from every possible court, including the Supreme Court, which could significantly extend the duration of the case.

Amid these complex legal battles, the decision by Judge Merchan remains highly anticipated, with potential implications not only for Trump but also for the broader understanding of presidential immunity in the United States.

The outcome of this case will likely resonate beyond the courtroom, impacting public opinion and future legal interpretations of presidential powers and responsibilities.